Study Details | Pathways to Work

3055-Promoting work in pu

Study quality: High

High

Reason for the rating: This study received a high study quality rating because it is a low-attrition randomized controlled trial with no known issues that suggest the findings cannot be attributed to the intervention.

Intervention: Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families

Services provided:

Education, Financial incentives, Soft skills training, Supportive services, Training (Occupational or sectoral training), Work readiness activities (Job development/job placement)

Setting: Urban only

Study design

Design:

Cluster randomized controlled trial

Study group formation:

Six cities were selected for the evaluation based on a national competition. Within each city, to qualify for the study, housing authorities needed to have at least two developments that met the following criteria: at least 250 family-occupied units (not including those occupied by people age 62 years or older), no more than 30 percent of families include an employed family member, and at least 40 percent of families receive Aid to Families with Dependent Children. The evaluation included a total of 15 housing developments. The authors randomly assigned housing developments to conditions when the program was launched in 1998. Each city included a matched cluster of two or three similar housing developments; one was selected to implement the intervention, and the other one or two housing developments were assigned to the comparison condition. The impact analysis focused on individuals between ages 21 and 61 who were not identified by the housing authority as disabled. The authors obtained data for up to six years before and six years after implementation of Jobs-Plus. The report presents findings for two cohorts (1998 and 2000). The 1998 cohort included residents of a Jobs-Plus or comparison site in 1998 when Jobs-Plus was launched; the 2000 cohort included residents of a Jobs-Plus or comparison site in 2000. The purpose of the 2000 cohort was to account for mobility within the 1998 cohort. (The 1998 cohort includes residents who moved out by 2000, whereas the 2000 cohort excludes these residents.) This review focused on the results from the 1998 cohort with all sites combined. All other contrasts, including all contrasts for the 2000 cohort, represent subgroups (individual sites or level of implementation) and are not eligible for this review.

Time period of study:

The program was launched in 1998 (random assignment) and was rolled out from 1998 to 2000. The follow-up period was 2000 to 2006, although program services were only available until 2003.

Primary outcome domains examined:

Increase short-term earnings, Increase long-term earnings, Increase short-term employment, Increase long-term employment

Other outcome domains examined:

Physical health, Criminal justice, Housing, Financial incentives, Child well-being

Study funded by:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Department of Labor, Rockefeller Foundation, Joyce Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, James Irvine Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Northwest Area Foundation, Stuart Foundation, BP, and Washington Mutual Foundation funded the study.

Results

View table help Need more context or definitions for the table below? View the table help to get insight into terms, measures, and definitions.

Scroll to the right to view the rest of the table columns

Outcome domain	Measure	Timing	Study quality by finding	Comparison group mean	Intervention group mean	Impact	Units	Sample size
Increase short-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 1	High	7,199.00	7,379.00	180.00	2003 dollars	4,774
Increase long-term earnings	Annual earnings	Year 5	High	8,106.00	8,578.00	472.00	2003 dollars	4,774
Increase short-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate, annual	Year 1	High	54.70	55.70	1.00	percentage points	4,774
Increase long-term employment	Average quarterly employment rate, annual	Year 5	High	48.10	48.20	0.10	percentage points	4,774

Short-term outcomes are those measured 18 months or fewer after participants are first offered services. Long-term outcomes are those measured between 18 months and 5 years after participants are first offered services. Very long-term outcomes are those measured 5 years or more after participants are first offered services.

Findings quality key:

High
Moderate

Study quality terms?

The findings quality describe our confidence that a given study’s finding is because of the intervention. We do not display findings that rate low.

Findings key:

A moderate-to-large favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large favorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small favorable finding that might be due to chance
A favorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A favorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A moderate-to-large unfavorable finding that might to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance
A small unfavorable finding that might be due to chance
An unfavorable finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
An unfavorable finding that might be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size
A finding that is unlikely to be due to chance, but we cannot determine the standardized effect size or direction
A finding of no effect that might be due to chance

Favorable findings are impacts in a direction that is socially desirable. Statistical significance indicates the likelihood that a study finding is due to the intervention, rather than due to chance. Findings are described as moderate-to-large if the intervention produced a sufficiently large change in the outcome. An impact receives this designation if the standardized effect size is equal to or greater than 0.25 or equal to or less than -0.25.

Sample characteristics

The study described the census tracts in which the housing developments were located as populated by people of color and characterized by single-parent-headed households, large numbers of adults without a high school diploma, large numbers of foreign-born residents, and a large proportion of residents living in poverty.

Age

Mean age

35 years

Sex

Female	77%
Male	23%

Participant race and ethnicity

Black or African American	58%
White, not Hispanic	3%
Asian	16%
Another race	3%
Unknown or not reported	7%
Hispanic or Latino of any race	14%

The race and ethnicity categories may sum to more than 100 percent if the authors reported race and ethnicity separately; in these cases, we report the category White, rather than White, not Hispanic.

Family status

Parents

76%

Intervention implementation

Implementing organization:

Jobs-Plus is implemented through a partnership between the public housing authority, resident representatives, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families agencies, and the local workforce development system.

Program history:

Jobs-Plus did not exist before the start of the demonstration, though it was based on lessons learned from past employment initiatives.

Intervention services:

Jobs-Plus is an employment and training program with three core components: employment-related services and activities, financial incentives to work, and community support for work. For this evaluation, Jobs-Plus was implemented in selected housing developments in six U.S. cities from 1998 through 1999. The program was delivered to all working-age, nondisabled residents living in the housing developments.

Mandatory services:

None.

Comparison services:

The comparison housing developments were treated as a business-as-usual condition (no Jobs-Plus services).

Service receipt duration:

The rollout period was a two-year period (1998 and 1999), and services were available through 2003.

Intervention funding:

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; U.S. Department of Labor; Rockefeller Foundation; Joyce Foundation; Annie E. Casey Foundation; James Irvine Foundation; Surdna Foundation; Northwest Area Foundation; Stuart Foundation; BP; and Washington Mutual Foundation.

Study publications

Kato, Linda Yuriko, Stan L. Bowie, Alissa Gardenhire, Linda Kaljee, Edward B. Liebow, Jennifer Miller, Gabrielle O’Malley, and Elinor Robinson. (2003). Jobs-Plus site-by-site: Key features of mature employment programs in seven public housing communities. New York: MDRC. Available at: https://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/jobs_plus_site_by_site_fr.pdf.

Bloom, Howard S., James A. Riccio, Nandita Verma, and Johanna Walter (2005). Promoting work in public housing: The effectiveness of Jobs-Plus, Final report, New York: MDRC. Available at https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED484619.pdf.

Riccio, James (2010). Sustained earnings gains for residents in a public housing jobs program: Seven-year findings from the Jobs-Plus demonstration, MDRC policy brief, New York: MDRC. Available at https://www.mdrc.org/publication/sustained-earnings-gains-residents-public-housing-jobs-program.

View the glossary for more information about these and other terms used on this page.

The Pathways Clearinghouse refers to interventions by the names used in study reports or manuscripts. Some intervention names may use language that is not consistent with our style guide, preferences, or the terminology we use to describe populations.

Study of Jobs-Plus Community Revitalization Initiative for Public Housing Families